Rose v. Brownlee

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted November 14, 1924.

Decided December 1, 1924.)

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1924-12-01

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1924-12-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1950

1 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1J. B. Hall, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

¶2C. M. Clarke, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4By the concurring decisions of the three tribunals of the Patent Office, appellee's were awarded priority of invention over appellant Rose. The invention consists of heating gas to be used with oxygen in metal cutting and welding. Appellant is the junior party by over three years. This point, however, is of little importance, since the case turns upon the question of originality of invention. Only issues of fact are involved, and from an examination of the record we find no reason to disturb the findings of the various tribunals of the Patent Office. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.